rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (02/20/85)
> From my perspective, what happens is *this* -- > you post a followup to some article. In it you slam certain exoteric > beliefs, practices, or (sometimes) believers. There are a lot of > Christians out there. They don't like having their beliefs slammed. They > send a reply. You followup that reply...and so on, and so on, and so on... > [LAURA CREIGHTON] When my beliefs get "slammed", unjustifiably, I counter with an offering of the reasons why the argument slamming my beliefs was flawed (if I can formulate such an offering). When *I* write an article "slamming" beliefs, I try to ensure that I have backed up what I have said with evidence. The responses to such articles are not of the form "This is the flaw in your reasoning, Rich." or "You haven't taken *this* into account." (Exceptions have occurred when the "this" in the previous sentence is something that the group as a whole has already addressed and found flaws with.) Rather, the responses are of the form "HOW DARE YOU QUESTION MY BELIEFS? WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, SHOWING FLAWS IN A BELIEF SYSTEM HELD BY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS? YOU MUST BE AN ASSHOLE!" If responses like *that* wouldn't get you irate, and prompt you to get a little annoyed, frustrated, and perhaps nasty, well, ... (Another RULE #1 I've learned to live with: When you show people a flaw in their logic, they have every right to punch you in the face. Or so it seems on the net...) > I think that this is a problem. There seem to be people who think that > arguing sides of the Christianity/Humanist debate (flame?) is a lot of > fun. You claim to be enjoying it. *Enjoying* it? When did I claim that? I found some aspects of it very *interesting*, like the short-lived (why?) absolute good/evil discussion. I've found that interacting with people of opposing points of view on a rational basis helps improve understanding on both sides. I've grown to understand to some extent where the concerns of people with opposite viewpoints lie, and I would hope that the same holds true for them regarding my concerns. What's more, taking the time to discuss these things has better helped me to understand clearly (and hopefully to state clearly) my point of view. If you don't believe this, read article <509@pyuxd.UUCP> on "Logic based on different sets of assumptions". It codifies the concepts I've been trying to put forth in this group since day one (or two), to me, better and more clearly than anything I've written before. Is that why no one has offered any response to it? Because only my vindictive (because of what?) articles get responded to, providing an opportunity for people to say "See? Rosen is an asshole."??? > The problem is that there are 2 groups of people that I know about who are > not enjoying it. The first group are the Christians who want a nice forum to > discuss Christianity with the implicit assumption that Christianity is true. Anybody who thinks that they can control and determine what gets said (and by whom) in a particular newsgroup is in for a surprise. Look at net.singles! How many people who contribute are actually single? How many of the articles contain anything related to "being single"? Face it, net.singles is the REAL net.social (AND net.love/sex AND net.personal_affairs), with "net.social" practically starving by comparison. People choose the newsgroup(s) in which they post their articles based on whom they want to address, whom they wish to read the articles, which audience the article is intended for. If I have a question to ask of people who own Volkswagens, I'm going to ask it in net.auto.vw (if such a thing still exists). If it doesn't, I'll post it to net.auto proper. If I have a question to ask of religious believers, that's what net.religion WAS for. If I have a point to make and a further question to ask on something Jeff Sargent (or Sragnet, as I noticed that I've been spelling it) has said in net.religion.christian, I'm liable to follow it up in that same newsgroup. Whether Steve Hutchison calls it impolite or not... > The second group is comprised of people who think that both sides of > the argument are seriously flawed. This includes the believers of > primarily esoteric religious practice, but may not be confined to them. > I am in this category, and so is Tim Maroney ... If you consider both sides to be seriously flawed, you're just as welcome to respond to the same article I referred to above (and others). Though the thrust of my articles is often directed at problems with what you call exoteric religions and their "implementation", many of my points apply to esoteric religions as well. > It has been my experience that it is possible to have long mail discussions > with Christians such as Gary Samuelson without having an argument/debate. To a degree, it's been mine as well. > It has also been my experience that it is impossible to do this in > net.religion. I used to believe that this was because posters to > net.religion were in part interested in grandstanding on their soapbox > for the amusement of their friends and fellow believers/unbelievers. > Now, however, I think that this is not the case. I think that the problem is > that net.religion is viewed as a battleground. Nobody shows up there > unless they are gunning for bear, since they expect to get an argument > fought tooth and nail. This means that otherwise calm and reasoned people > resort to unreasoned ad hominem attacks and flaming (all's fair in love, > war, and net.religion) and people who will not resort to these tactics > either never post or stop posting. I think that the problem is that RELIGION, not NET.religion, is viewed as a battleground. Some trying to persuade others of their rightness, others resenting the efforts, still others seeking to persuade by stronger means, still more others resisting that. Yes, even the gentle little footprints article had swipes taken at it. And maybe that's the point. People who want to air their beliefs in a public forum but don't want to hear contrary points of view in that same forum are living in a dream world. And if they wish to control what other people have to say, well, Gary Samuelson knows the word that describes that. As Charlie Wingate had already mentioned, there is a *private* forum, a mailing list, for private discussions amongst Christians. But net.religion.christian is a *public* forum. Like net.women.only turned out to be. (That's one of the reasons there's a feminist mailing list as well.) > I would like to try to do something about this. Since you tend to provoke > (maintain?) such arguments, moving you is a simple way to test the theory > that it is the presence of arguments which continues the arguments. The > theory may be wrong, but if it *isn't* it would be nice to do something. I wasn't "put" on earth to be the subject of your scientific experiments, Laura, and I resent being the "guinea pig" to formulate some sort of netnews litmus test. *I* wasn't the one who replied to the Footprints poem. The series of articles countering each other that followed it (no less abrasive than my own) had nothing to do with my participation in either newsgroup. I'm not the only one who responds to articles in either newsgroup, "impolitely" (as Hutch would call it) or otherwise. -- Otology recapitulates phonology. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (02/22/85)
[Laura Creighton] >> The problem is that there are 2 groups of people that I know about who are >> not enjoying it. The first group are the Christians who want a nice forum >> to discuss Christianity with the implicit assumption that Christianity >> is true. [Rich Rosen replys] >Anybody who thinks that they can control and determine what gets said (and by >whom) in a particular newsgroup is in for a surprise. Look at net.singles! >How many people who contribute are actually single? How many of the articles >contain anything related to "being single"? Face it, net.singles is the REAL >net.social (AND net.love/sex AND net.personal_affairs), with "net.social" >practically starving by comparison. People choose the newsgroup(s) in which >they post their articles based on whom they want to address, whom they wish >to read the articles, which audience the article is intended for. If I have >a question to ask of people who own Volkswagens, I'm going to ask it in >net.auto.vw (if such a thing still exists). If it doesn't, I'll post it to >net.auto proper. If I have a question to ask of religious believers, that's >what net.religion WAS for. If I have a point to make and a further question >to ask on something Jeff Sargent has said in net.religion.christian, I'm >liable to follow it up in that same newsgroup. Whether Steve Hutchison >calls it impolite or not... I can only take this to mean that Rich Rosen fully intends to thumb his nose at whatever the stated purpose of this group is; since it provides him with a convenient captive audience of Christians to rant and rave at, he intends to continue posting to it. [More Rich R.] >As Charlie [Charley] Wingate had already mentioned, >there is a *private* forum, a mailing list, for private discussions amongst >Christians. But net.religion.christian is a *public* forum. >Like net.women.only turned out to be. (That's one of the reasons there's a >feminist mailing list as well.) What a moral argument: "because other people trashed net.women.only, that gives me license to trash net.religion.christian." As a member of the not-very-famous mailing list, let me say that I think it has one very serious deficiency: it's hard to get on the list. Obviously, there is a good reason for this, as it prevents the list from being trashed by hostile anti-christian diatribe. On the other hand, this doesn't tend to encourage new blood (us anglicans gotta eat sometimes, you know :-)). As a public forum, this group affords the very real advantage of a larger audience. What I and many others find very tedious is to start a reasonable discussion, only to have it seized upon by the Christoclasts who roam the group in search of new battlefields for their anti-religious diatribes. (By the way; send applications to the mailing list to: {seismo!allegra}!umcp-cs!mailJC-request or mailJC-request@maryland.ARPA) Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (02/23/85)
Reply to Rich: When my beliefs get "slammed", unjustifiably, I counter with an offering of the reasons why the argument slamming my beliefs was flawed [...] The responses to such articles are not of the form "This is the flaw in your reasoning, Rich." Rather, the responses are of the form "HOW DARE YOU QUESTION MY BELIEFS? WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, SHOWING FLAWS IN A BELIEF SYSTEM HELD BY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS? YOU MUST BE AN ASSHOLE!" If responses like *that* wouldn't get you irate, and prompt you to get a little annoyed, frustrated, and perhaps nasty, well, ... (Another RULE #1 I've learned to live with: When you show people a flaw in their logic, they have every right to punch you in the face. Or so it seems on the net...) No. When you show people a flaw in their logic they do not have the right to punch you in the face. You have got the problem down pat. (except -- hmm, Rich, if this is you when you are ``a little annoyed, frustrated, and perhaps nasty'' I would hate to see you when you go whole hog... But there is a further problem here. This business of face-slamming has been going on for years here. You are obviously not getting your message across. Now the question to ask is: What is wrong with your messages that so many people can't understand them? ``They are all morons'' is not an acceptable answer. It may be true, but then you are a fool to argue with them in the first place. My theory is that they are not listening because they perceive you as not listening -- and hostile to boot. If you want to get a better response out of them, then you are going to have to change this perception of them. A good place to start is to always assume that if your message isn't getting across, then it is *your fault* for not tailoring it to your audience properly. Sometimes, of course, this isn't the problem. But it saves on flames. At some point you may have to consider that they are not interested in logic at all -- and if you conclude that this is the case then what are you going to do? Logical arguements are not going to work with them no matter how you phrase them! *Enjoying* it? When did I claim that? I found some aspects of it very *interesting*, like the short-lived (why?) absolute good/evil discussion. I've found that interacting with people of opposing points of view on a rational basis helps improve understanding on both sides. I've grown to understand to some extent where the concerns of people with opposite viewpoints lie, and I would hope that the same holds true for them regarding my concerns. What's more, taking the time to discuss these things has better helped me to understand clearly (and hopefully to state clearly) my point of view. If you don't believe this, read article <509@pyuxd.UUCPon "Logic based on different sets of assumptions". It codifies the concepts I've been trying to put forth in this group since day one (or two), to me, better and more clearly than anything I've written before. Is that why no one has offered any response to it? You may be understnading them better, but I don't tghink that they are understanding you. From the mail I have received, it seems that a fair chunk of the readership think that you are playing a con-game -- you claim to want understanding but don't make any effort to understand. This claim may be false -- but you seem to have lost some of teh audience. The article you mention hasn't arrived here yet. I don't know exactly what happened to the ultimate good/ultimate evil discussion -- but Larry Bickford (where is he now?) and I went at it for a few months by mail. it took that long for us to get a defintion of ``evil'' that we both could use. I don't think that we ever got a definition of ``good'' that was mutually acceptable. Because only my vindictive (because of what?) articles get responded to, providing an opportunity for people to say "See? Rosen is an asshole."??? Yes, but if this is happening, at least it is easy to fix. Cut out the vindictive articles. And stop worry about ``because of what'' --, because, at this late date, it doesn't matter. That you may be justified in venting your spleen doesn't mean that you *should*. Why contribute to the general level of vidictiveness? is it doing you any good? [Long paragraph on how nobody can force which newsgroups people post to.] Yes. Remember me? It is going to be a very cold day in hell before I start advocating censorship -- but that wasn't the idea. The idea was to set up a form where you could get the audience you are interested in, as well as one where they could get the audience that they are interested in. This is more like the net.music split -- but then, I seem to recall, you didn't like this one either. Why? I think that the problem is that RELIGION, not NET.religion, is viewed as a battleground. Some trying to persuade others of their rightness, others resenting the efforts, still others seeking to persuade by stronger means, still more others resisting that. Yes, even the gentle little footprints article had swipes taken at it. And maybe that's the point. People who want to air their beliefs in a public forum but don't want to hear contrary points of view in that same forum are living in a dream world. And if they wish to control what other people have to say, well, Gary Samuelson knows the word that describes that. As Charlie Wingate had already mentioned, there is a *private* forum, a mailing list, for private discussions amongst Christians. But net.religion.christian is a *public* forum. The problem with mailing lists is that new people don't know that there is one, and that casual readers who don't want to always follow the discussion either get their mailbox filled when thy don't desire this or get themselves removed from the mailing list. Why not have more than one public forum? The dificulty about the argument about it being the fault of religion, rather than the currect activities of net.religion is that certain discussions seem to take place without rabid flaming -- at least for a while. How much flaming is there about ``what do various Christians believe about transubstantiation'' now? Why is there so little about this? I think that this is because nobody has gotten up and said ``if I can't one of those hosts under my microscope and see the real molecules of Christ then I won't believe and beside you are all ninnies for believing this anyway.'' Now -- I am sure that there are a lot of people who believe this. How come we haven't seen this? because this argument is not worthwhile. But many people get sucked into the same unworthwhile debates again, and again, and again. This is folly. Most of the Christians can claim ``well, I wasn't around 2 years ago -- so this is news to me''. But there are others, like Ken Ardnt and Kar:en alias larryg who seem fantastically interested in such folly. And you, Rich, either also enjoy this or get sucked in far too often. So, why not move these arguements to another newsgroup? net.religion.perpetual perhaps? (gee, I'm having fun thinking of names). I would like to try to do something about this. Since you tend to provoke (maintain?) such arguments, moving you is a simple way to test the theory that it is the presence of arguments which continues the arguments. The theory may be wrong, but if it *isn't* it would be nice to do something. I wasn't "put" on earth to be the subject of your scientific experiments, Laura, and I resent being the "guinea pig" to formulate some sort of netnews litmus test. *I* wasn't the one who replied to the Footprints poem. The series of articles countering each other that followed it (no less abrasive than my own) had nothing to do with my participation in either newsgroup. I'm not the only one who responds to articles in either newsgroup, "impolitely" (as Hutch would call it) or otherwise. -- Otology recapitulates phonology. I never said that you were ``put'' on earth for anything at all. Why so resentful? Your claim that your participation in either newsgroup had nothing to do with the abrasive series of articles is exactly what I want to test. Why are you opposed to being the ``guinea pig''? Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (02/26/85)
I'm taking the liberty of responding to some points addressed to Rich Rosen, because I've experienced these same arguments at one time or another. In article <5093@utzoo.UUCP> laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: > Reply to Rich: ... > But there is a further problem here. This business of face-slamming > has been going on for years here. You are obviously not getting > your message across. Now the question to ask is: What is wrong > with your messages that so many people can't understand them? ... > My theory is that they are not listening because they perceive > you as not listening -- and hostile to boot... Quite possibly true-- of some individuals. But there are a lot of people who do get his message. Some people feel you aren't listening unless you agree with every word they say. If they aren't receptive, there are enough others who are that I wouldn't cry. > At some point you may have to consider that they are not interested in > logic at all -- and if you conclude that this is the case then what > are you going to do? Logical arguements are not going to work with them > no matter how you phrase them! I argue both for the individual I am addressing and the audience. If an individual is not interested in logic, he/she will have to labor to convince those in the audience who are amenable to logic. I think logic and rationality have a pretty fair following, even in net.religion.christian. > You may be understnading them better, but I don't tghink that they are > understanding you. From the mail I have received, it seems that > a fair chunk of the readership think that you are playing a con-game -- > you claim to want understanding but don't make any effort to understand. > This claim may be false -- but you seem to have lost some of teh audience. I've been accused of this also. I feel the claim is false. If someone explains their beliefs to me, and I spot a "leap of faith", I will not adopt their beliefs. I can still understand their beliefs, and extrapolate upon them. But some people will misinterpret rejection as lack of understanding. I'm always happy to explain why, if they'd only ask (some do) and not judge hastily. > That you may be justified in venting your spleen doesn't mean that you > *should*. Why contribute to the general level of vidictiveness? > is it doing you any good? It took me years (in notes on the PLATO system) to cut down on my sarcasm and adopt a policy of turn the other cheek while rebutting accurately. I think there is an esthetic involved, that supplants the satisfaction one can receive from goading someone else into apoplexy. Sometimes I slip: I can only ask tolerance. > But many people get sucked into the same unworthwhile debates again, > and again, and again. This is folly. > > Most of the Christians can claim ``well, I wasn't around 2 years > ago -- so this is news to me''. But there are others, like > Ken Ardnt and Kar:en alias larryg who seem fantastically interested > in such folly. And you, Rich, either also enjoy this or get sucked in > far too often. So, why not move these arguements to another newsgroup? > net.religion.perpetual perhaps? (gee, I'm having fun thinking of names). Schoolteachers seem to have the same personal "problem" of not being satisfied with their own personal knowledge. I don't think that willingness to educate is folly. And splitting newsgroups doesn't entirely solve the problem either, because the education process must continue to keep newcomers writing in the correct groups. And it is amusing to consider that you are getting sucked into one of those "foolish" perpetual arguments yourself right here. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh